"U.S. Immigrants To Boycott on May 1st". This Really Pisses Me Off.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


What is law but written down morals?

I can't believe you said that...

If it is, it is very selective about which morals it writes down.

[Agathon]

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.

Unless they're spics, eh?

[Fake Boris]

law is nothing more then escaping the state of nature. The absolute violence which is how we would naturally react is so horrific, we agree to rules to avoid that. You can say it is morality if you want, but it is not.

Sorry to disappoint you, but it is. I wonder what else can morality be, if it's not about rules we follow to avoid things we find horrible?

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Agathon


I can't believe you said that...

If it is, it is very selective about which morals it writes down.

Of course... but then he didn't claim it was a collection of all moral rules.

[Victor Galis]

As a believer in free trade and a globalized economy, I have come to view immigration controls as just another trade barrier that must be reduced.

And for the record, I've now spent over half my life living in countries that I am not a citizen of.

For whatever reason, their ancestors were less afraid to mix with native populations, through love or through force. Whites for the most part wanted no part in that.

Because the Spanish didn't come to settle the New World as much as to extract gold from it. As a result they needed the natives as a cheap supply of labor and didn't need the natives' land for settlement. The English colonies were much more heavily populated and wiped out the natives to take their land and settle it. Then they imported slaves.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by MrFun
Did GePap pwn Snoopy??

um... no.

[SlowwHand]

You dorks still refuse to differentiate between immigrants and illegal alies.
Doing a very unlawyer-like thing here and asking without knowing the answer, for one country with no rules on entry and staying?

If there IS one, I'll bet it's because no one wants to be there in the first place.

[SlowwHand]

And Mobius The Mouth prompted me to do some research He needs to have his lips sewn together.


England:

Population
male: 23,922,144
female: 25,216,687
total: 49,138,831

Place of birth
UK: 90.7%
EU elsewhere: 2.3%
Outside EU: 6.9%

Ethnicity
White: 90.9%
Indian: 2.1%
Pakistani: 1.4%
Mixed: 1.4%
Black Caribbean: 1.1%
Black African: 0.9%
Chinese: 0.4%
Black Other: 0.2%

Religion
Christian: 71.7%
No Religion: 14.6%
Not Stated: 7.7%
Muslim: 3.1%
Hindu: 1.1%
Sikh: 0.7%
Jewish: 0.5%
Buddhist: 0.3%
Other: 0.3%


Where are all the Mexicans, legal or not? Where is anyone?
STFU then. You have no basis of comparison, so go pick your navel.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Vesayen
The only rights foreigners have are the moral and legal rights we give them.

Some might disagree. F'instance:

We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...

Basic rights are not a gift from the government or from the citizenry, but rather are the birth right of all people simply because we are human.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Victor Galis
Because the Spanish didn't come to settle the New World as much as to extract gold from it. As a result they needed the natives as a cheap supply of labor and didn't need the natives' land for settlement. The English colonies were much more heavily populated and wiped out the natives to take their land and settle it. Then they imported slaves.

The natives of Mexico were more amenable to enslavement than those north of the Rio Grande because they lived in societies with a more hierarchical organization. They were more accustomed to the idea that they might have to work for someone. Some of them already were enslaved by the Aztecs. The natives of what is now the USA were not so easily enslaved because most of them lived in tribal societies in which most male adults were free men and often participated in the tribal ruling councils. There were tribes in Spanish America which also resisted enslavement to the same extent as those in British America. They fared about as well as their more northerly brethren.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You know what? I'd hate that to but if I somehow bought land and violated the law, I kind of have it coming. You really should research if you plan to buy property. There is also a marked difference between buying land and uknowingly doing so improperly, and knowing you are buying it illegaly.

Oncle Boris answered the beginning of your post, so I'll tackle this one.

You've misunderstood. YOU didn't violate any laws in my example. You bought the land, but then didn't keep up with it. A trespasser settled onto your land and under the doctrine of adverse possession, if he lives openly on your land for a certain amount of time (maybe 12 years, maybe 15, maybe 20 depending on the state) and you don't kick him out, the trespasser gets the title to that part of the land he was on.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Whoha
Yea after they killed those natives.

After they killed some of those natives, not all, not even most, not even a significant portion. More like, killed enough to conquer the city.

[Ming]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
And Mobius The Mouth prompted me to do some research He needs to have his lips sewn together.

Discuss the topic, not the posters, or you won't be posting anything for a while.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


The natives of Mexico were more amenable to enslavement than those north of the Rio Grande because they lived in societies with a more hierarchical organization. They were more accustomed to the idea that they might have to work for someone. Some of them already were enslaved by the Aztecs. The natives of what is now the USA were not so easily enslaved because most of them lived in tribal societies in which most male adults were free men and often participated in the tribal ruling councils. There were tribes in Spanish America which also resisted enslavement to the same extent as those in British America. They fared about as well as their more northerly brethren.

As the first Europeans on the scene, the Spaniards came for riches and conquest. They got lucky and were the ones to find the rich and advanced local societies, which they conquered and exploited. The other Europeans got there late, and could not take that route, as the other native societies were too poor to make it worth ruling them. Since disease had already wiped most of them out by that point, exterminating the locals and taking their land was possible, and just what occured.

As for the immigration issue, did "illegal immigration" even really exist prior to the 20th century? Its not like anyone could ever check the legality of someone, since things like passports and mass identification were non-existant. So how can anyone prior to the age of passports and so forth claim that their ancerstors came "legally" when the way in which the law could be carried out was so different.

[Smellycowsquid]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Ignorant Texans really piss me off.

As one man put it. "Don't mess with Texas"